1 / 36

Trusted Logic Voting Systems with OASIS EML 4.0 (Election Markup Language)

May 29, 2005. http://www.oasis-open.org. Trusted Logic Voting Systems with OASIS EML 4.0 (Election Markup Language). Presenter: David RR Webber Chair OASIS CAM TC http://trustedelections.org. Contents. Trusted Logic Voting (TLV) Needs, Approach and Implementation Using OASIS EML

smithtracy
Download Presentation

Trusted Logic Voting Systems with OASIS EML 4.0 (Election Markup Language)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. May 29, 2005 http://www.oasis-open.org Trusted Logic Voting Systems withOASIS EML 4.0(Election Markup Language) Presenter: David RR Webber Chair OASIS CAM TC http://trustedelections.org

  2. Contents • Trusted Logic Voting (TLV) • Needs, Approach and Implementation • Using OASIS EML • History, Overview, Processes, Transactions • Applying OASIS EML • Example process steps and actions • Supporting US-style elections • Summary

  3. Trusted Logic Voting Needs • How can we ensure the voting machine does not cheat on the human operator who cannot “see inside”? • How can we know that every vote is counted as cast? • If you have two parties that you cannot trust, how do you create a process that works between the two – in a way that if either cheats you will know? • How can you create an audit trail that allows 100% crosschecking while keeping voter privacy? • Use existing work in the field on multi-party trusted logic process (e.g. MIT approach using the “Frog Principle”*) *see: http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/vtp_WP2.pdf

  4. Trusted Logic Concept Party A Party B 2 ask Party B to tell you what that information says 4 1 Take what Party A tells you 3 copies can be independently audited Compare the two Keep secure copy Keep secure copy

  5. Trusted Logic Applied to Voting • First party creates record of the voters’ choices • Voter selection information transferred to second party • Second party then confirms what the first party did and displays that information for the voter to confirm • Confirmation uses write-once technology • paper ballots (preferred medium today) • or “digital-paper” – liquid crystal plastic that machine “writes” to and human can read* • or write-once digital chips that insert into a computer slot (MIT “frogs”) • Process completes with three records retained • What the first party said they did • The copy they passed to the second party • What the second party displays to the voter (printed as paper ballot) • Auditor can compare all three records – to ensure they match • * too costly today – but maybe within fifteen years time will be as cheap and easy to handle as paper.

  6. US Voting System Example Party A Digital ballot recorded Digital storage Media (write once) DRE device DRE device Party A’s record e-Vote record 2 Storage process • Printed ballot • Voter Verified • Hand Cast Audit verification record 4 Voter 1 Send Vote Details Paper ballot cast XML Print process 3 Party B’s record e-Print record • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete • cast VVPB Party B Digital storage Media (write once) Print record stored printing device - Trusted Logic Voting in action -

  7. Core Trust Principles • Verifiable paper ballots • Matched e-Vote electronic records • Electoral roll of voter participation • Private and anonymous • Secure 100% tallying and crosschecking • Easy for citizens to understand

  8. Three Pillars of Trust • Electoral Roll • managed by election officials and administered by voting staff • process designed to ensure anonymous vote • Electronic voting records • generated by voter using voting system • digitally recorded and stored by voting system • Matching Paper voting records • generated by voter using voting system • manually cast or mailed by voter

  9. Fundamentals of Trust • 100% audit and comparison every time of all three Trusted Pillar counts to produce a certified election result • Separation required between each step of the process; the trusted logic process is applied between the electronic and paper vote handling • No single system can control or access more than one of the Trusted Pillars processing – each has to be distinct • Every paper vote record is scanned and counted; every matching electronic vote is stored and then separately tallied

  10. Ensuring Timely Results • To be trusted elections must be able to produce timely answers and results • 100% audit and comparison of three counting sources provides this direct analysis of voting counts immediately after the balloting closes • Avoids recrimination, legal challenges and uncertainty that is introduced by today’s partial audits only • Identifies and traces operational issues (machine problems or operator errors) and resolves them • Allows confidence in declared results of elections

  11. Balancing information capture • A trusted logic process allows the minimum effective information collection to effect a secure voting process • Too much information compromises anonymous voting in subtle ways • Too little information prevents effective audit trails • Example: stamping votes with machine IDs – good idea or bad idea? • Next we look at how OASIS EML 4.0 instructs on the information exchange details…

  12. Quick Overview of EML • History • Work begun in May 2001 in the USA and UK • Charter: To develop a standard for the structured interchange of data among hardware, software, and service providers who engage in any aspect of providing election or voter services to public or private organizations • UK government has implementations: • UK Local Election pilots held in May 2003. • http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/election • Council of Europe Endorsement • Council of Europe Ministers have endorsed the e-voting recommendations and with that the use of EML http://europa.eu.int/ida/en/document/3294/358 • EML 4.0 is a committee draft for review and comment, other countries in Europe now exploring use, Spain, Swiss … Overview of EML and processing: http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xmle03/slides/spencer/spencer.ppt

  13. Category Overview of EML One or more XML schemas series are provided to support each general process area: • Pre election • Election (100) • Candidates (200) • Options (600) • Voters (300) • Election • Voting (400) • Post election • Results (500) • Audit • Analysis • Some functions belong to the whole process and not to a specific part: • Administration Interface • Help Desk

  14. Solution Components for EML XML Forms tools XForms tools 1 2 Election Officials Interface Voter User Interface voting form flow process Implemented using form tool to the OASIS EML specifications by local solution providers XML XML XML XML XML ballot votes audit log verification counts Implemented as OSI public libraries conforming to OASIS EML specifications Software Handlers for EML components (runs on open platform / hardware) store read print count Persistent secure storage OASIS initiative forming to develop OSI components for EML processes

  15. Selected EML 4.0 Transactions

  16. OASIS EML 4.0 transaction use • Electoral Roll (EML 310, 330, 340) • managed by election officials and administered by voting staff • process designed to ensure anonymous vote • Electronic voting records (EML 440, 460, 480, 510) • generated by voter using voting system • digitally recorded and stored by voting system (EML 510) • Matching Paper voting records (EML 440, 480) • generated by voter using voting system • manually cast or mailed by voter • scanned electronically (EML 440, 480, 510)

  17. EML and US Voting Example 2 Digital ballot recorded EML formats: 310, 330, 340, 410, 420 Digital storage Media (write once) EML formats: 440, 460, 480 e-Vote record Storage process EML formats: 440, 460, 480 • Printed ballot • Voter Verified • Hand Cast 4 Voting Paper ballot cast EML formats: 440, 480 1 EML formats: 440, 480, 410 XML Print process EML formats: 440, 460, 480 e-Print record • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete • cast VVPB Printing device Digital storage Media (write once) 3 Print record stored - Using EML formats in action -

  18. Reality of real-world voting • Good solutions have to be adaptive and survive in a complex unpredictable world; they have to administer well • Today’s paper-based voting methods have a culture around them and years of operational lessons learned • Need to have formalized documented procedures • Council of Europe Ministers have endorsed the comprehensive steps for e-voting recommendations and with that the use of EML http://europa.eu.int/ida/en/document/3294/358 • Expecting 100% perfection is unrealistic; trusted system has to be a best case – that allows people to be able to diagnose events and occurrences, e.g.: • someone forgot a voting card left in a voting machine • the machine jammed; the disk is unreadable • someone keyed in the wrong setup code • the computer hardware failed

  19. EU Procedures* (Processing Layers) Items covered: • Electoral roll and voter registration • Voting process • Counting process • Verification and Certification • Equipment deployment, setup and control *see:http://www.coe.int/T/e/integrated_projects/democracy/02_Activities/02_e-voting/01_Recommendation/default.asp#TopOfPage

  20. EU Procedures – clarifying items (1) These trusted logic items should be added: • Explicit reference to the importance of using write-once media for vote recording - either paper or digital • Need for voters to be able to physically verify their vote directly - via paper ballot or equivalent physical representation of an actual ballot - not an electronic ephemeral representation, and to cast that physical representation by hand • Need to separate the layers of the process - so the same component provider is not doing all vote creating, printing, and counting the total votes (no single solution provider) • Need to use trusted logic principle so that the voter can verify that the digital voting choice recorded matches the physical voting choice they selected

  21. EU Procedures – clarifying items (2) These ballot processing items should be added: • Need to compare 100% of all counts - electronic and physical ballot counts and electoral record counts to ensure they tally* • Explicit call-out of the need to avoid sequential processing information compromising vote privacy and anonymity • Explicitly call-out that overall election counts should be tallied independently for each of the sources - electoral roll, digital votes, and voter verified (paper) ballot counts (after scanning - EBI - Electronic Ballot Imaging**). * More in-depth technical operation level discussions here: http://gnosis.cx/publish/voting/privacy-electronic-voting.pdf ** Electronic Ballot Imaging - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-matters36.html

  22. How OASIS EMLviews process steps andseparations • Election: • Candidates • Ballot / Referendum • Voters • Voting • Results • Audit

  23. Procedural requirements • One implementer cannot supply solutions across more than one layer or process • Each layer must be autonomous and passes information to next layer in open formats that can be inspected and verified • Software involved must be published to open source • Physical separation of layers and devices associated with them

  24. Process Overview 1 Confirm voter eligibility and verification Electoral roll and voter registration Maintain independent voter electoral roll Provide lists of voters for access to polls 2 Dual path: paper and e-voting records Voting process Processing uses open exchange formats Not sole vendor solution 3 Scans paper ballots; tallies e-votes media Counting process + audit logs Verifies e-vote signatures and status logs Compares counts from all three sources: paper, e-votes, electoral roll 4 Artifacts storage to open public spec’s Verification and Certification Each component lab’ tested for interop’ Version control and signature on software 5 Guidelines for equipment behaviours Equipment operational needs Access and deployment needs

  25. OASIS EML process details • The OASIS EML provides details for each part of voting process (see specification for exact details) • Next few slides show how these can be applied to a trusted logic voting process more process details – NIST / HAVA:http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/Process%20Model%2020050223.pdf

  26. Projected US implementation flow Digital storage Media (write once) digital ballot recorded Precinct level consolidations (canvassing) 6 DRE device Media delivered to tallying center Send e-Vote record 2 5 e-Vote counts Storage process Polls close Reconcile votes display ballot; make choices 7 + 4 1 Printed ballot Precinct level consolidations (canvassing) ballot counts (EBI) + Media delivered to tallying center Send e-Print counts paper ballot cast + • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete • cast VVPB Print process e-Print record voter counts (electoral roll) 3 8 Results Declared Digital storage Media (write once)

  27. EML 440 EML formats: 440, 460, 480 EML 410 EML formats: 440, 460, 480 EML formats: 440, 460, 480 Action Process : Voting DRE entry Dual-track trusted logic voting 4 Printed ballot 1 • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete • cast VVPB Hand Cast Ballots (scanned to EBI) Process A Process B XML 2 Submit request e-Vote capture ballot printing 3 XML Confirm print done Records of what printed Local Storage Device Local Storage Device e-Vote records Digital storage Media (write once) Digital storage Media (write once) XML XML

  28. Action Process : Counting Initial Counting 1 e-Vote tallying e-Vote records ballot scanning 2 Digital storage media Provisional results Count Verification Retrieve from storage devices collected XML 3 Compare Vote records and counts Ballot Tally (EBI*) Print ballot records Review / deferred ballots Electoral Roll Digital storage media Review Process Retrieve from storage devices collected Accepted ballots Rejected ballots Verified Results 4 *Electronic Ballot Imaging - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-matters36.html

  29. Action Process : Voter Verification 1 Token enabling device Electoral Roll Provide random voting token Recycle voting token 2 4 3 Proceed to Voting booth Deposit ballot Electoral records Digital storage media Digital voting records KEY FACTOR: Avoid inadvertent sequential local information imprinting! Digital storage media

  30. Creating an open marketplace • Open trusted logic voting (TLV) that underpins voting in the digital age • A healthy and open marketplace where a broad range of service providers can deliver solutions to citizens, using off-the-shelf cost-effective components, that support and enhance the voting system and experience • Based on open specifications that have free use licensing and not encumbered by any specific proprietary technology • Inform and guide legislators and administrators

  31. TLV Implementation Components • Voter registration and ballot day sign-in - separate system, with separate counts and reporting at end of day. Providers voters with access to voting system to cast their ballot; uses OASIS EML formats • Separate Voting system that voters access to select choices, make vote, passes choices to VVPAT printing system, creates electronic record of vote (uses simple ballot-ID to provide crosscheck and real-time auditing). Supports disabled access and multilingual access. • Ballot printing system - creates paper record, and printing audit electronic record. Voter confirms paper ballot detail, and casts vote into ballot box. Ballot-ID printed on ballot; ballot is scanned into EBI*. • Immediate counting - after polls close – provides 100% crosscheck via ballot-ID between counts from 1), 2) and 3). Takes OASIS EML records and counts them. Counting software is open source. Using 3 separate count systems – gives banking system level of robust auditing and trust. • The goal is to provide the underlying functions as OSI - and then allow solution providers to provide localization and value-add above that using the form tools of their choice. * EBI – electronic ballot image (EML 440)

  32. Comparison Matrix

  33. Summary – What EML supports • Allows implementation of trusted logic process combining paper and digital ballots • Details of the core elements and their interactions, safeguards and cornerstones • Mechanisms and separations to secure process and provide audit crosschecks • XML required to run all the exchanges • Open international public specifications

  34. Useful Resources • Website of Professor Rebecca Mercuri - http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html • Brookings Institute Report - Agenda for Election Reform - http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb82.htm • CalTech site on ensuring voting integrity - http://vote.caltech.edu/reports • NYVV - Advantages of ballot scanners over DREs - http://www.nyvv.org/paperballotVsDRE.htm • Analysis of counting irregularities in US elections - http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm • MIT Study on accuracy of voting systems - http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/vendors/studies/20040601_Ansolabeherepaper.pdf • Verified Voting sitehttp://www.verifiedvoting.org • West Virginia procedures for optical scanning ballots - http://www.wvsos.com/elections/eday/procedureselectronic.htm • Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) -http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/index.htm • Anecdotal reporting on 2004 US elections - http://www.lionsgrip.com/voting2004.html • NIST Glossary of Terms document – http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/voting glossaryv2Feb28.doc • IEEE P1622 - http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc38/1622/p1622_documents.htm • Overview of EML: http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xmle03/slides/spencer/spencer.ppt • Technical aspects vote processing: http://gnosis.cx/publish/voting/privacy-electronic-voting.pdf • Trusted Logic Voting: http://trustedelections.org

  35. DRE + VVPAT “sealed” Printer Analysis DRE entry TRUST ISSUES Audit record printing Voter unable to directly verify what the printer dumps into the container 1 A • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete Sequence of paper in container may not be random enough compared to single central ballot box B Submit request 2 e-Vote capture Printer could print information that is not verified by voter (not anonymous) C Confirm print done Printed audit record on paper roll Single vendor for voting and printing devices D Voter verifies Printed details Requires special printer instead of familiar everyday printer E Local Storage Device e-Vote records 3 More difficult for visually impaired voters to verify printed ballot behind plexi-glass shield F G Equipment reliability and failures 4 Digital storage Media (write once) DRE can manipulate vote and printing without needing voter intervention, or by ignoring / misleading voter H Printer dumps sheet into sealed container, or advances paper on roll Fails Trusted Logic! Voter cannot be assured that spoiled or incomplete ballots really are ignored I Missing use of standard XML to configure ballot forms and manage printing J

  36. DRE + VVPAATT Audio Device Analysis DRE entry TRUST ISSUES Audio record of voting Voter unable to directly verify that the recording has taken place 1 A • Actions: • choose • print • confirm • complete Sequence of recording on cassette can compromise voter privacy B Connected to DRE 2 e-Vote capture Recording can contain information that is not heard by voter (vote manipulation) C Continuous recording Captured audit record Digital media may be damaged, unusable, or fail to record. D Voter verifies audio details Operation slower than paper-based balloting because of audio dialogue E Local Storage Device e-Vote records 3 Deaf voters cannot use the verification system F Manual processing of audio records difficult if by-hand audit required G 4 Digital storage Media (write once) Equipment reliability and unrecoverable failures leading to potential vote loss H Cassettes retained in sealed container when polling closes I Custody of and changing cassettes when full Operational Issues! Voter cannot be assured that spoiled or incomplete ballots really are ignored J Missing use of standard XML to configure ballot form details and manage audio dialogues (VoiceXML) K 5 High speed scanning and vote counting as crosscheck

More Related